Top scientist resigns admitting gobal warming is a big scam!

[Frankfooter]

Pornaddict, can you stop spamming us with the Mark Steyn (you mispelled it as Steryn, sigh) book?

Steyn is a Heartland funded lobbyist masquerading as a journalist.
His book is based on quotes, but the scientists who made those quotes all claim Steyn took them out of context.

Now, if I was writing a book that mainly included quotes by experts on something, then picked out three quotes from the entire book to be representative, there are two things I would do. First, I would make sure the quotes were from credible experts. Second, I would make sure that the quotes are key indisputable examples of what those experts think. So, I asked myself, does it make sense that Jonathan Jones, Eduardo Zorita, and Simon Tett think Michael Mann got it all wrong, and the Hockey Stick concept is bunk?

I contacted all three of these individuals to see what they thought about this. Let’s start with Simon Tett. Frankly, I was very surprised to see his quote used by Steyn, because as far as I know, Dr. Tett is a mainstream climate scientist who has made important contributions to understanding variability in the climate record. Indeed, he has contributed to the the Hockey Stick reconstruction by advancing research on the role of aerosols. Tett and Michael Mann have published together on this issue. It made no sense that Tett would be bashing Mann and his work, because some of that is his own work. I wondered if the quote is taken out of context. Would Mark Steyn take a scholar’s quote out of context, totally changing the meaning, in order to associate that scholar with discredited ideas, or maybe turn one scholar against another?

Of course he would. That is his modus operendi. Maybe he likes getting sued?

Anyway, when I asked Simon Tett about this, he told me that he does not recall the quote, though perhaps it was from a private email (like this) and has all the context removed. Note that the quote is supposed to have come from 2001, so Tett assumes it would have been, had he actually said it, a criticism of the hockey stick paper. He told me, “I think my criticism was that it was likely missing some variances. My view then and still is that recent warming is very likely outside the range of natural variability.”

I have not seen Tett’s quote in its original exact context, but I think it is part of a larger bit of text that makes up part of the so-called Climategate 2.0 emails. If so, Tett said,

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/

 

[FAST]

Originally Posted by FAST
So what is the "theory" that the climatologist clubs have for the almost exact same rate of so called "global warming" from 1910 thru 1945 as per NASA's graph,...or is that just another unexplained natural phenomena,...???

FAST

35 years is too short as period to look at. Look at it in hundred year stretches. 35 years is only a long time relative to a human lifespan, in terms of a warming ocean or whatnot it is a blip.

This is you reply to my original post,...

Human caused global warming started with the industrial revolution. Actually, with the agricultural revolution.

Actually,...IF you read my post before replying,...the time span I quoted DOES in fact go back 100 years.

FAST

 

[Moviefan-2]

Ok, this should be fun.
Where in that document does it say that 111 of 114 models got it wrong.

Page 768, for example:

"However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21ºC per decade)."

"During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1a)."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

 

[Moviefan-2]

Pornaddict, can you stop spamming us with the Mark Steyn (you mispelled it as Steryn, sigh) book?

Steyn is a Heartland funded lobbyist masquerading as a journalist.
His book is based on quotes, but the scientists who made those quotes all claim Steyn took them out of context.


http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/

This is the kind of post that Frankfooter loves -- brain-dead commentary from a guy who hadn't actually read the book (the book hadn't even been released at the time Laden wrote this blog post -- Laden's comments were based on some advance publicity of quotes in the book).

In fact, the full context of Tett's comments are provided in the book (Pages 121 and 122).

 

[Frankfooter]

This is the kind of post that Frankfooter loves -- brain-dead commentary from a guy who hadn't actually read the book (the book hadn't even been released at the time Laden wrote this blog post -- Laden's comments were based on some advance publicity of quotes in the book).

In fact, the full context of Tett's comments are provided in the book.

Steyn is a fool, he's a Heartland lapdog who took their money and provided 'deliverables' to the media. He went way to far and is getting sued by Mann, deservedly. He has lost so far, was dropped by his lawyer, probably for calling the judge 'stupid' publicly, tried to represent himself, was dropped by those who were also being sued and now came out with this book in the middle of an ongoing libel suit.

And note that no publisher wanted to touch this book even with a ten foot pole, Steyn had to 'self publish'. Even Watts, of wattsupdoc, is being very careful about quotes from this book, lest he find himself in court.

The fact that Steyn's three big quotes turned out to be bullshit isn't at all surprising.
He's burning all bridges and his career in this stupid attack on Mann.
And he's losing.

You're a loser to be pushing this book too, joining in with this crowd.

 

[Frankfooter]

Page 768, for example:

"However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21ºC per decade)."

"During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1a)."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

Ah yes, back to the 'pause' argument.
Which brings us back to our bet.
You bet that the IPCC projections are wrong and that there was a 'pause' and all climate change had stopped, or something like that.
Now that we are 4 months away from the end of our bet and the recorded temps are within 0.01ºC of both my bet and the IPCC projections these claims are all shown to be 'hot air'.

The IPCC report was responding to denier attacks, claiming there was a 15 year pause by cherry picking a date that started with the last super El Nino year, 1997 and going 15 years forward.
IPCC projects are all meant to be long term, decadal to century long projections, and focusing on one cherry picked date was both dishonest and it turns out to be wrong.
Now that 2014 broke all records and 2015 is breaking them again, its clear there was no real 'pause' just another wiggle in the line of temp. This one likely caused by oceans absorbing a bit more heat, likely because of increased wind and extreme weather events.

The models weren't all 'wrong', as you already noted, the projections fell within the IPCC's range of projections, though just at the bottom of them.
So while you still try to claim that 'they got it all wrong', you've also admitted that they didn't, that its within their range of projections.

The temperature anomalies fit within the range of the models.

Not only are you dishonest, you are going so far as to call yourself a liar.
Nice one.

 

[Moviefan-2]

It's funny that the guy who is always making appeals to authority is suddenly no longer interested in what the scientists have to say.

Steyn's book features quotes from more than 100 scientists -- including Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Gavin Schmidt, Tom Wigley, and other big AGW champions -- casting doubt on Mann and his work.

And contrary to the lies that Frankfooter is peddling, the quotes are not "bullshit." All of the quotes are documented and provided in their full context.

The so-called "scientific community" says the hockey stick is crap. If you're going to insist on appeals to authority, you're going to have to accept what the authorities are saying.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The models weren't all 'wrong', as you already noted, the projections fell within the IPCC's range of projections, though just at the bottom of them.

I didn't say the model runs were "all" wrong -- I said they were 97% wrong (or 98%, if you use the University of Hamburg's study) and that the IPCC's predictions based on the average of the models were spectacularly wrong.

In another thread, I mentioned how Frankfooter and Basketcase like to engage in "Santa Claus is real" sophistry.

Essentially, it works like this: You take one fact point, misrepresent the context of that fact point, and ignore all the other facts in order to draw a preposterous conclusion.

For example:

-- There are many children who believe Santa Claus is real and that each Christmas he brings them presents.

-- On Christmas Day, children throughout the world will wake up to find presents from 'Santa' under the Christmas tree.

-- Thus, according to Frankfooter and Basketcase, the science has proven that Santa Claus is real.

Naturally, any thinking adult can see the obvious flaws in such logic. But Frankfooter and Basketcase can't.

They continue to insist that "the models" got it right because three of 114 model runs were correct. Using "Santa Claus is real sophistry," they argue that we should continue to believe in anthropogenic global warming.

Of course, they don't like to mention that 111 of the 114 models got it wrong (you'll notice that Frankfooter evaded that point after I provided him with the quotes).

Even worse, when they cite the three model runs that got it right, they never mention that those three model runs actually projected the Earth's temperature wouldn't increase. The three model runs that correctly projected the temperatures were based on calculations that increases in man-made greenhouse gases wouldn't lead to any change in the planet's temperature.

That's hardly a proof point in support of anthropogenic global warming.

 

[Frankfooter]

It's funny that the guy who is always making appeals to authority is suddenly no longer interested in what the scientists have to say.

Steyn's book features quotes from more than 100 scientists -- including Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Gavin Schmidt, Tom Wigley, and other big AGW champions -- casting doubt on Mann and his work.

And contrary to the lies that Frankfooter is peddling, the quotes are not "bullshit." All of the quotes are documented and provided in their full context.

The so-called "scientific community" says the hockey stick is crap. If you're going to insist on appeals to authority, you're going to have to accept what the authorities are saying.

You read this book?

Wow, I knew you were crazy, but I had no idea how crazy.


Now that you are defending the credibility of Steyn, lets just acknowledge that your personal credibility, as a judge of science and morals, should rest on this decision.
Are you prepared to say your credibility is as reliable as Steyn here?

 

[fuji]

Page 768, for example:

"However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21ºC per decade)."

"During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1a)."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

Do you even know how to read what you posted?

Seriously, you just laughed yourself off the stage.

Models being over or under for specific time periods doesn't invalidate them if they nevertheless had less error than the alternatives.

Your failure to understand the statistical methods being used and the way they are evaluated is not an argument for anything other than your own ignorance.

 

[Frankfooter]

I didn't say the model runs were "all" wrong -- I said they were 97% wrong (or 98%, if you use the University of Hamburg's study) and that the IPCC's predictions based on the average of the models were spectacularly wrong.

You are calling yourself a liar then.
You also noted that the present temperature readings also were all within the IPCC projections ranges.

The temperature anomalies fit within the range of the models.

By the way, do you consider a projection that is 0.01ºC from target accurate or 'spectacularly wrong'?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Models being over or under for specific time periods doesn't invalidate them if they nevertheless had less error than the alternatives.

"Over or under"? LMFAO!

The models have been consistently and spectacularly "under." In the 21st century, there is no "over."

You test a hypothesis by measuring the predictions against the observed data. In its 2013 AR5 report, the IPCC reported the models had a 97% failure rate.

And the predictions, based on the average of the models, have been spectacularly wrong. And always in the same direction -- under.

As for the metric for falsification of the hypothesis, the climate researchers have refused to set such a metric. You're not required to accept my metric and I'm not required to set yours.

One thing we can say, though. Since the hypothesis can neither be falsified nor verified, it has no basis in science.

You also noted that the present temperature readings also were all within the IPCC projections ranges.

Nonsense. Here's the key part from Page 769 of Chapter 9 of the IPCC's AR5 report:

"CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21ºC per decade"

Exactly. The IPCC's predictions were based on the average of the model runs, and have been spectacularly wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Frankfooter:

I see you're once again implying that you'd like to review the terms of the bet to see who was right.

Fine with me -- but first things first.

First, you have to confirm that we're settling up. Once you've confirmed that you want to settle (and I will happily oblige), I'll be quite pleased to review the numbers with you.

But not until you confirm that you want to settle.

 

[eznutz]

A Former Climate Modeler for the Australian Greenhouse Office Says Mathematics Used by UN Overstates Global Warming by Ten-Fold
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/37852

 

[Frankfooter]

Frankfooter:

I see you're once again implying that you'd like to review the terms of the bet to see who was right.

Fine with me -- but first things first.

First, you have to confirm that we're settling up. Once you've confirmed that you want to settle (and I will happily oblige), I'll be quite pleased to review the numbers with you.

But not until you confirm that you want to settle.

Nonsense, I'm not 'implying I'd like to review the terms of the bet', the only one who has constantly tried to weasel out of it is you, buddy.
The bet was for a year, we'll wait for a year or until you concede you've lost.

Hey, did you hear about the V20?
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/0...ogether-finance-v20-philippines-vietnam-kenya

Sounds like you should send them some of your dodgy charts and numbers to show them they have nothing to worry about as their glaciers melt and the sea rises up around them.
Good luck.

 

[fuji]

"Over or under"? LMFAO!

The models have been consistently and spectacularly "under." In the 21st century, there is no "over."

You test a hypothesis by measuring the predictions against the observed data. In its 2013 AR5 report, the IPCC reported the models had a 97% failure rate.

And the predictions, based on the average of the models, have been spectacularly wrong. And always in the same direction -- under.

As for the metric for falsification of the hypothesis, the climate researchers have refused to set such a metric. You're not required to accept my metric and I'm not required to set yours.

One thing we can say, though. Since the hypothesis can neither be falsified nor verified, it has no basis in science.



Nonsense. Here's the key part from Page 769 of Chapter 9 of the IPCC's AR5 report:

"CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21ºC per decade"

Exactly. The IPCC's predictions were based on the average of the model runs, and have been spectacularly wrong.

Your basic idea here is that if a model doesn't exactly match every single time interval that it is somehow to be rejected.

You just don't have a clue.

If you fit a linear regression over data collected from a strictly linear process it is unlikely to match any single data point, it will just have less error than any other model. These models are complex but it is easy to show that the same principle holds for a polynomial approximation.

To dispute these models you need to have a better model, not take potshots based in your own ignorance of the methods used.

And you don't have a better model.

 

[Frankfooter]

Excellent article on Exxon posted.
Internal documents show that Exxon knew about the dangers of climate change and fossil fuel use and then turned around and then denied all dangers as well as starting to fund lobbyists and denier disinformation sites.

As early as 1977, one of Exxon’s senior scientists warned a gathering of oilmen of a “general scientific agreement” that the burning of fossil fuels was influencing the climate. A year later, he had updated his assessment, warning that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
In the 1980s, Exxon scientists collaborated with academic and government researchers to build climate models and understand their implications. When one researcher expressed the opinion that the impacts would be “well short of catastrophic,” the director of the Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory at Exxon Research responded in a memo, “I think that this statement may be too reassuring.” He said it was “distinctly possible” that the projected warming trend after 2030 “will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth’s population),” a conclusion that most climate scientists now hold, assuming we continue business as usual.

What did Exxon executives do with this information? Until 1989, they circulated reports summarizing it inside the company. They allowed their scientists to attend academic meetings, to participate in panels, and to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals — in short, to behave as scientists. And they did acknowledge the “potentially catastrophic events that must be considered.”

Then corporate executives turned about face. As the scientific community began to speak out more strongly, first about the risks of unmitigated climate change and then about the fact that it was underway, Exxon executives and organizations funded by them embarked on a campaign designed to prevent governments from taking meaningful action. These activities continue today.

Exxon (whose spokesman has disputed the Inside Climate News reporting) had a choice. As one of the most profitable companies in the world, Exxon could have acted as a corporate leader, helping to explain to political leaders, to shareholders and institutional investors, and to the public what it knew about climate change. It could have begun to shift its business model, investing in renewables and biofuels or introducing a major research and development initiative in carbon capture. It could have endorsed sensible policies to foster a profitable transition to a 21st-century energy economy.

Instead — like the tobacco industry — Exxon chose the path of disinformation, denial and delay. More damagingly, the company set a model for the rest of the industry. More than 30 years ago, Exxon scientists acknowledged in internal company memos that climate change could be catastrophic. Today, scientists who say the exact same thing are ridiculed in the business community and on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/opinion/exxons-climate-concealment.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

 

[bishop]

Yes science has always been about picking between several shitty computer models, you would think that given this reality that scientists would pick none of them and just leave the decision to when better models/circumstances arise. Of course I am wrong because AGW is a real science and it has revealed to me that real science is not about experiments, not about observation, not even about validation, it is about picking the least sh*ttiest computer model available and worshipping that shitty model as the new king.

We do not have a model of abiogenisis nor do we have a complete model of how the universe came into existence, given those realities it is scientific to believe in creation science for two reasons, first and most importantly it has the name "science" in it, and secondly creation science offers the only model that even attempts to explain abiogenisis and the creation of the universe, therefore it is the best model we have and as such it shall be worshipped as the truth.

 

[fuji]

Yes science has always been about picking between several shitty computer models, you would think that given this reality that scientists would pick none of them and just leave the decision to when better models/circumstances arise. Of course I am wrong because AGW is a real science and it has revealed to me that real science is not about experiments, not about observation, not even about validation, it is about picking the least sh*ttiest computer model available and worshipping that shitty model as the new king.

We do not have a model of abiogenisis nor do we have a complete model of how the universe came into existence, given those realities it is scientific to believe in creation science for two reasons, first and most importantly it has the name "science" in it, and secondly creation science offers the only model that even attempts to explain abiogenisis and the creation of the universe, therefore it is the best model we have and as such it shall be worshipped as the truth.

Kooky.

 

[bishop]

In my post, if you replace creation with the word climate, then the way you feel about my post is the same way I feel about your justification and support of climate science.